11/21/24
June 14, 2002
U.S. moves on despite 3-1 loss to Poland in which they gave up two goals in the first five minutes. The quotes from Sports.com's live game chat tell the story of the start: "For those of you have just joined us, the States conceded two fairly ridiculous early goals."
Shame about having that early goal stolen from us by a clearly insane ref. At least we're moving forward. I had to come into work at half time and had the ESPN gamecasts of both games up. I was pacing frantically around my cubicle letting out tiny cries of delight or despair every couple of minutes. Coworkers were understandably baffled. I'm pretty worried about the Mexico game now. As long as Agoos stays injured we may have a chance though.
posted by elsoltano at 08:44 AM on June 14, 2002
And just when you were thinking the Italians were jammy bastards, along come the Yanks ;-)
posted by squealy at 08:45 AM on June 14, 2002
As a Yank, what exactly is a jammy bastard- and should I be offended? :)
posted by hincandenza at 08:58 AM on June 14, 2002
Jammy is English slang for lucky. And no of course you shouldn't be offended, or else why would I be winking? Mexico next yes? They gave the Italians one hell of a game. Good luck. You'll need it.
posted by squealy at 09:04 AM on June 14, 2002
Actually, I don't think the USAians were jammy: Portugal sat back when they heard the Poland-USA score, and everyone feared that the second half of Portugal-S. Korea would be as mundane as the last few minutes of Italy-Mexico, but the Koreans hadn't read the script. Consider it a great victory for New World naivety. Of group D, the two best teams went through in proper order, and the final table reflects the differences in quality: ie the Koreans well ahead. That said, I do think that a 3-1 defeat is probably the worst possible prep for a game against Mexico, and the US are certainly one of the weakest teams in the second round.
posted by etagloh at 09:12 AM on June 14, 2002
I don't know who was luckier out of USA and Italy. If there's any justice, both will crash and burn in the next round. Paraguay and Turkey were also spawny gits. It may not be true of American soccer fans in general, but from what I've seen in the last few days, online fans were very confident about the Poland game. That should have been a warning sign. Poland were not as bad, and USA were not as good as the first two rounds of the group suggested. Like Ireland, USA seem to play better as the underdog.
posted by salmacis at 09:37 AM on June 14, 2002
Italy weren't lucky. to have 4 perfectly good goals disallowed throughout the group stage is exceedingly unlucky.
posted by nedrichards at 09:49 AM on June 14, 2002
Oh, no question: while South Korea has played extraordinarily well, the US looks over their heads. That Friedel is a heckuva of a goalie, though, and Beasley's got some fast young legs- but I think they're offensive game is lackluster at times, and I don't like their midfield- I think they're transition game seems to be a huge weakness, resulting in far fewer scoring opportunities. I say this as an absolute soccer neophyte, so my opinion is pretty much useless. :) I don't know how Mexico plays or matches up, but who knows? The US has done more than expected, and is already well into pure "bonus" territory. A win against Mexico is not inconceivable...
posted by hincandenza at 10:08 AM on June 14, 2002
I only watched the second half due to work, but the yet again, the game was virtually decided in the first 5 minutes. I think our players showed too much international inexperience, getting beaten so quickly after 2 rotten calls went against them (not that I'm biased, of course). The first corner should have been a penalty shot for USA, the Pole was holding McBride by the neck! But the foul was whistled on Donovan. The disallowed goal was a very poor call. But the issue for me was the USA seemed too distracted and unfocused following those controversies, and forgot the match was continuing. I chalk that up to lack of experience in international games that actually mean something. The Poles were too good to be taken lightly. I think Coach Areana contributed by starting Stewart over Beasley. Seemed as if he gave the message "let's use experience to play for the draw" rather than put in the best chance to attack and win. Ironically, I think Korea gave themselves a problem by winning the group. Even though the records from group play don't reflect it, I'd rather play Mexico than Italy in stage 2. Even if Korea clear the Italian hurdle, they more than likely will face Spain, who would be on a 4 game win streak at that point. Meanwhile, USA goes back to underdog, against a team it is very familiar with. should be a good affair, if USA gets focused early.
posted by zombywoof at 10:38 AM on June 14, 2002
We were lucky to get through. And it could be very dodgy against Mexico in the 2nd round. A couple of thoughts on the game: I'm a San Jose fan, and I have problems with Agoos' speed even at the club level. The guy is done. Mathis is overrated. He has an alright shot, though pretty wild at times, but he is basically a goalhanger and his passes are needlessly risky and mostly miss their mark. I would rather see Donovan and Beasley up front any day.
posted by kafkaesque at 11:01 AM on June 14, 2002
Gosh, do we owe Korea a favor or what? hincandenza: Your analysis is not far off. The US is no Senegal. Claudio Reyna has been disappointing in midfield. The distribution of the ball from midfield has been patchy, if not non-existent. The US relies on quick counter-attacks based on long balls to a target man like McBride who can knock back or hold off the ball for the main striker like Mathis, or some release passes to speedy young players like Beasley and Donovan. No knocking those players, but this strategy is based on assuming you're an underdog, absorbing the attacks of superior teams and then poach any opportunities that may arise. It does not predicate the assertion of any control over a match. So the US can only absorb up to a marginal point, wherein they assume an opponent will get tired, frustrated and lose focus, and then provide an opening for a breakaway. This strategy is limited, as Poland showed, because it makes it hard to come from behind. The strategy works if you can breakaway for early goals and then sit back on your lead. Or sit back and take a beating until you can hit a sucker punch. But it does not allow you to dominate and dictate the flow of a match, like Argentina or Brazil might do. See how they struggled against Korea, who just kept coming at them. If not for Mathis's surprise early goal (against the run of play), tremendous keeping from Friedel, and Korea's sub-par finishing, the US would've been soundly drubbed. We should draft Veron and Ortega into the US. heh.
posted by worldcup2002 at 11:10 AM on June 14, 2002
wc2002, great point on the US strategy being that of an underdog. The only optomism I can take from that is that we have come far enough to be competitive in the role we have held for decades (underdog). Now maybe we can take the next step to develop players that can control a game. I have been disappointed by Reyna for years. I've rarely seen him control the pace of a game the way I've always hoped he should. Or perhaps it is more because he's never had any supporting cast for him to grow into that role, I can't tell. btw, is it just me, or is there a chance for Japan to make it to the final four? I think they can handle Turkey, and would need some luck against Sweden, but... that would be amazing, eh?
posted by zombywoof at 11:20 AM on June 14, 2002
Glancing down the grid, it seems to me that Belgium should be the ones complaining about rotten luck: they get through to face Brazil, and the winner of that gets the winner of England/Denmark. If the US is somehow able to get by Mexico, it gets the winner of Germany/Paraguay-- and I think that's about where Germany starts breaking down
posted by outside counsel at 11:39 AM on June 14, 2002
Brazil for the cup. I think they're the emotional favorites. Watching them against Costa Rica was a pure joy. That Edmilson goal was the exclamation point of the match. (And all credit to Costa Rica for not sitting back and playing a spoiler's game, altho, it might have served them well to do so.) zomby: Mr Reyna, I think, has been held back by injuries (missed the last World Cup and the first game of this Cup) as well as an overall mediocre team. He's done well at Sunderland in the English Premiership (which I think was great for toughening him up) and has won the adoration of the locals. It's probably easier there, since he's got teammates like Niall Quinn, Kevin Phillips and Julio Arca.
posted by worldcup2002 at 11:49 AM on June 14, 2002
Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't the US beat Mexico qualifing tourney?
posted by thekorruptor at 12:02 PM on June 14, 2002
Yes thekorruptor. They won 2-0 at "home" to Mexico but lost 1-0 away.
posted by squealy at 12:50 PM on June 14, 2002
Note that that game was Feb. 28th in Columbus Crew Stadium. I am thinking that there is not much chance for snow in Korea this week.
posted by eckeric at 01:49 PM on June 14, 2002
And, of course, Korea will have a 12th man. (SpoFi cross-post)
posted by worldcup2002 at 02:17 PM on June 14, 2002
hincandenza, you may be new to the game, but that shouldn't stop you having an opinion. Some West Brom fans have been watching the game for years and still talk utter bollox. Italy were most definitely not lucky, had they gone out they would have been victims of several appalling miscarriages of justice. Unlike France, Portugal and Argentina, they have actually put a bit of effort in and have looked quality. They are dangerous. Disagree with the Mathis knockers, he has looked very useful to me and has made many subtle touches. Pity about the haircut. I don't believe the U.S have anything to fear from Mexico, they have reached the limit of their ambition I reckon and anything could happen. While the U.S seems to lack a bit of pace and guile they have discipline and do the simple things well, which might be what is required. Mexico have been free to run at will thus far, I cannot see the U.S allowing them to do that. Will the fact it is a derby heighten interest in the U.S? The old cliche (for benefit of neophytes) is that at this level, in a league, you finish where you deserve, luck doesn't come into it. So the so called underdogs have earned their place at the high table, and the so called aristocrats already sitting at home are sitting exactly where they belong. This has been the best world cup ever so far, and I can remember back to '66. I thought it was a stupid idea to take it to Japan and Korea and still do. However the evident joy displayed by the Japanese and especially the Koreans has warmed my old cockles. Absolutely brilliant.
posted by Fat Buddha at 02:51 PM on June 14, 2002
Fat Buddha: First, what a joy to be in the company of a true football fan. Thanks for your comments. Second (but probably most important), congrats on Birmingham getting into the top flight! I didn't realize they'd been promoted -- nor how hard they had to work to get it -- until I read your profile. I'll look forward to the Liverpool v Birmingham games! And don't you have derbies with Villa? Thump'em! Finally, back to the thread. I'm still ambivalent about Mathis. Aside from his goal, I don't see him as much of a contributor as, say, Beasley and Donovan, McBride, or any of the defenders. Also, as you said, the US has discipline and do the simple things well. I credit this workmanlike and team-oriented mentality (and refreshing lack of arrogance) to the recognition that, on the whole, they don't yet have the all-around skill that a Brazil or even a Senegal has. This attitude has got them this far, but I fear they will wither against a full-on assault by teams such as that. Perhaps I shall be happily proven wrong.
posted by worldcup2002 at 04:15 PM on June 14, 2002
OK, make me think about it why don't you? And I was enjoying making flip comments. Yeah, I suppose that the USA with workrate and organisation might be pretty hard to overcome (though tell that to the Poles). I think that could, maybe make the difference, unless Mexico score then it's sayonara USA. I've missed seeing the Mexicans except for the Italy game, where they looked excellent; creative and lucky. Whatever. Game on. I love the World Cup.
posted by squealy at 06:10 PM on June 14, 2002
Hah, worldcup 2002, thanks for your comments, I thought the Birmingham fans knew how to go crazy with joy but then I hadn't seen the South Koreans. While this world cup is on this seems to be a great site for football fans. We can discuss the games rationally and objectively, with no partisan cobblers getting in the way. Even anti Argentine and French posts have been minimal and where they have occurred have been measured. Amazingly, because of this site, I have found myself wanting the U.S to do well. Even Squealy, who appears to be a bit of a wind up merchant is evidently besotted with the whole thing and posts through a sense of joy , although he might benefit from a good nights kip. I might add that I have enjoyed all your contributions, while I am in a sycophantic mood. Keep it going or they will end up going on about the golf.
posted by Fat Buddha at 07:52 PM on June 14, 2002
Squealy's from Nottingham. You gotta feel for him. ;-)
posted by worldcup2002 at 11:47 PM on June 14, 2002
What d'ya mean "wind-up merchant"? LOL. Herr pot calling the kettle schwarz methinks. TM Gary Lineker. As worldcup2002 so rightly says, I'm from Nottingham, you have to make allowances. Of course we don't know where he's from as he can't be arsed to post a profile. Ooops footie fan-type banter. Must remember to try and be pretentious and over-intellectualise ;-)
posted by squealy at 03:25 AM on June 15, 2002
squealy: I am arsed. The profile's up, as vague as it is. Go ahead, take the mickey out of me. ;-)
btw, laddies, get out and cheer for Ireland tonite!
posted by worldcup2002 at 03:38 PM on June 15, 2002
thx for getting my redundant post, there- you moved quickly!